I've noticed that there's no Green Party forum. These America's Debate forums are obviously biased to hinder the Greens' participation. Simply put if it looks biased, then it's probably biased.

Perhaps you missed the Independent/3rd Party Forum. Since there has been almost nonexistent demand for a Green Party Forum, and very, very few Green Party debates in the Independent/3rd Party Forum......why don't you post more to that forum and drum up support for the topics you wish to debate. Be part of the solution, not the problem. I would however caution that cogently and clearly worded, focused debates will garner more attention.....and stay open.

Simply put, if you can't back up charges of 'obviously biased', then the poster is probably biased.

I think hg may be confused by the fact that there aren't any posts in that forum to reference to. Since it hasn't been posted to for last 6 months all the posts have been sent to the archive.

He should post his green party points and reactivate the forum. I'd like to see what the green party is up to.

Are you serious, bias against liberals from the AD staff ? Lol, come on now.

They dont allow religious debating here, which could easily be viewed as a topic conservatives tend to like to debate. I've had several forums closed for various reasons. For example one forum I did, that was closed, was about the War On Terror. <See link. The post was a very conservative and a supportive view of the war, but it was closed for being too large of a post, or something of that nature. It was something like 50 pages long, with about a hundred links, and it was closed like 10 minutes after it was posted. It took two weeks to write and do research for that forum, and it was closed I suspect after being briefly skimmed over.

Ive also had other forums closed, as have other conservatives here. I've felt at times a certain degree of bias on this site from moderators, but the majority of the people who post here regularly are left leaning. The majority of the moderators are probably left leaning too, so I've never heard anyone here come out with a post complaining about this site being biased against the left, until now.

In any case the moderation here has always been strict as long as Ive been a member, so you'll have to get use to that. Sometimes you wont always agree with a call that one of the moderators or administrators here makes, I don't always agree with the moderators here but it is, what it is. I've had little luck having a closed forum reopened, or getting religion added as a debatable topic but on the good side at least the administrators almost always reply to request. IM Jamie or Mike and see what they say about a Green Party forum because you never know, they may like the idea.

Bit by bit may be a better way to deal with this sort of misinformed post.

"They dont allow religious debating here, which could easily be viewed as a topic conservatives tend to like to debate."

Back when we allowed religious debates here, there was no quicker way for people to earn strikes and bans. Every thread devolved quickly into flame wars. Otherwise rational debaters would attack and flame. The decision to stop religious debates was not biased politically. It was a pragmatic move; it also inspired one of our early members, Otseng, to start his own debate site, focused entirely on religious debate. Those of us who enjoy debating religion, whether liberal or conservative, do so elsewhere. There is no conspiracy.

"For example one forum I did, that was closed, was about the War On Terror. <See link. The post was a very conservative and a supportive view of the war, but it was closed for being too large of a post, or something of that nature. It was something like 50 pages long, with about a hundred links, and it was closed like 10 minutes after it was posted. It took two weeks to write and do research for that forum, and it was closed I suspect after being briefly skimmed over."

That post was waaaaaay too long to open a debate. The political leaning of the post had nothing whatsoever to do with it. It was simply impractical. No offense, but figuring out the sort of opening post that leads to the best debates isn't exactly rocket science. Any thread that is predicated on everyone involved reading your 50-page thesis isn't going to work. One, people just won't read it, meaning they'll tend to ignore the post and simply respond to the questions. You could easily have posted your essay to a blog, then linked to it, along with a brief synopsis and some questions. Posting such a long opener here in the forum just isn't going to work. It has NOTHING to do with political orientation.

"Ive also had other forums closed, as have other conservatives here."

As have liberals. I'll be honest. Over the years, there have been a few people who felt that the administration of this site was too conservative, or too liberal, that the moderation was biased against whatever the member's own politics happened to be. Frankly it says more about the mindset of the member than anything substantial about the moderation. Moreover, the fact that people complain about it from both sides probably means in reality it is well balanced.

" I've felt at times a certain degree of bias on this site from moderators, but the majority of the people who post here regularly are left leaning."

Really? The person with the most posts is Ted. A quick glance here suggests that you may be wrong. As for who posts here the most regularly... it changes from year to year, month to month, election to election.

"The majority of the moderators are probably left leaning too"

Really? Let's start with Mike and Jaime. Both pretty libertarian. DTOM? Libertarian. MrsPigpen? She's not far right, but I'd say on a lot of issues she's center/right. Amlord, definitely Republican. UltimateJoe, Eeyore* and myself are the moderators on the left side of the dial, in fact.

When topics like this come up, I sorta wish you all could see the entire process of moderation laid out. When a post or a thread is reported, it lands in a forum the moderation team can see. It is built like every other forum on the site. We can post to it. Each report opens a new thread. Before action is taken by a moderator, the report is there for our comments and discussions. You might think a moderator has it in for you, but in reality, the action they take has been discussed amongst all of the staff, from all sides of the political spectrum.

Of course, we are human, and humans err. But Mike and Jaime have set up a very effective system of checks and balances that minimizes the chances of any moderator "going rogue." From time to time, one of us will slip up and moderate in a topic where we have been debating. But outside of the totally obvious cases, none of us close topics or delete posts without consultation (by obvious cases I mean, openers with no questions, obvious spam, posts without content or egregious rule breaking). And none of us EVER issue strikes without full discussion.

Jaime, I hope I haven't been too candid! I just don't like seeing this kind of misinformation sitting out there unanswered.

*edited to add in Eeyore. Sorry dude, I totally spaced out!

Well Quarkdude, before when I gave a criticism of this site, you jumped in pretty quick in defense of it and said I was wrong then as well. You can call a site criticism misinformed, I call it an opinion you don't hold. I've debated here long enough to know that this site, like any debate site receives its fair share of criticisms. I've seen members come and go pretty quick saying far worse than I ever have. Also don't get me wrong, its not a bad site I just don't agree with the mods "all the time", I also don't agree with the membes here "all the time" and I do believe its healthy to voice criticism, and disagree with others without feeling pressure to kiss up. That's me, you on the other hand seem to love everything about AD, which is fine, I wont claim your misinformed because You've also been a member here long enough to hold a valid opinion on it Understand?



Yes Ive heard that defense before "religion is too controversial and prone to starting flame wars to be debated here at AD" I don't believe that is the sole reason its prohibited here, in fact I know its not the sole reason. Ive talked to Mike in detail about this in private and he gave me a few reasons. If you ask me Religion is not the most controversial topic that has been debated here anyway. Race is the topic I believe stirs the most mischief and it's allowed, and it's far from the only topic that is debated here that generates flame wars or harsh words. That's part of what happens at any debate site regardless the topics being discussed. Another reason religion is not debated at AD is because their is no real interest in it from the Admins, so I was told.

That's their decision, whatever the reason, but I don't agree with it. I think a site that is called Americas Debate should include debates on religion as that reflects the interest of over half of our nation. In other words the theme of the site is Americas Debate, therefore It would be appropriate IMO to support the interest of religious America, after all its a huge group of Americans interested in debating the topic, correct? The decision not to allow religious debate here has isolated and pushed away a large demographic of debaters. I know this because some of the members that quit said that it was because they cant express their religious opinions.

I never said their was a conspiracy against conservatives, but this site is, in part, shaped demographically by the opinions of the moderators and admins. Flat out prohibiting certain debatable topics is one way this site has been effected by the views of its administrators and moderators. Again I'm not condemning the site, I'm just stating a disagreement just like the member who started this forum who was immediately told by a moderator that he is probably biased, and for what? For claiming bias on the behalf of the moderator team? I don't even agree with handsomeguys conclusion but he should be entitled to his opinion.







Yes Really, since I've been a member here the majority of the regular posters have been either liberal, left leaning independents, libertarians, or extremely moderate conservatives. There are exceptions like Ted and Amlord, and a few others, who are far right conservatives but they make up a minority here as far as regular posters go. To demonstrate that, this was my first impression of the site a coupe years back, not to mention my introductory forum at AD.........

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...er+conservative

at the end of this forum I say......

"Its weird there are so many Republican members on this site, I haven't heard from them much yet. I was actually surprised when I looked at that stats link blink.gif"

Even from the start of my membership here I could tell the "regular posters" were mostly liberals, left leaning independents, and a good number of libertarians. recently I was able to confirm what I already knew by taking an opinion poll that asked who our members voted for president in the last presidential election.....

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry262017

Out of 60 members who participated in that poll, 31 voted for Obama, and only 7 including myself voted for John McCain, 12 voted for other candidates, and 5 didn't vote. That's much more lopsided results than the national popular vote which showed only a 6% spread between McCain and Obama. So this is a clear indicator of the political leanings on this site. To put it shortly one of the most liberal presidents in history doesn't get the lionshare of the votes at a site that doesn't have a left leaning majority of regular posters. Now as for actual members here at AD there are actually hundreds upon hundreds of conservatives listed as members. However the vast majority of them don't post. Anyway, since Ive been here the far right conservative regulars are typically out posted on a daily basis. That's what I've observed as Ive posted myself for the last 2+ years. As for 6 years ago, I couldn't say. This is also not an attack on the site by the way, I've willingly debated with nearly all our left leaning regular members, and those certain interesting conservatives that spend the majority of their time criticizing conservatism. Ive actually stuck around here to learn about and debate with the left wing on important issues. If this site were mostly conservative I probably wouldn't have had the amount of debates that Ive had.

Ideally threads do not start off as liberal or conservative, but from a neutral position.

I’ve started a number of threads in five years. Only two have been closed immediately and that was because they were duplicate threads –someone beat me to the punch.

Others have been closed later when they got too bogged down – either hopelessly off topic or too much sniping.

I think part of that is simply due to the fact that conservatives tend to seek out conservative-oriented sites more than debate with the other side. A distressingly large chunk of conservatives see liberals as not merely the opposition, but the enemy. (This is true on both sides, but I find it more pronounced on the right.)

That said... I've dropped this site's address to a couple conservatives I know who are decent debaters and who enjoy it and I hope they'll come by and add to the balance a bit.

Be part of the solution, that's what I say.

Just to get a few points out...

In regard to having a Green Party forum, I don't foresee it happening. Not because I or anyone else agrees/disagrees with their platform, but because there is not enough Green Party participation to warrant its own forum. We have the Independent / 3rd Party Debate forum, and it is barely used. If, however, there were tons of Green Party topics in that forum, we would split it into a dedicated Green Party forum. We're not going to split an empty forum into two or more empty forums just for the sake of doing so. Until the numbers warrant a new forum, there will be no new forum.

In terms of open moderation, there is a balance that needs to be made-- and has been made-- between public actions and private staff discussions. I see no problem with members knowing the logistics of how moderation works-- which is how Quark described it-- but disclosing the actual details of day-to-day moderation falls under the "need to know" theory. Unless you are directly involved in a situation, there is no compelling need for a typical member to know every last detail of every moderation issue. All it will lead to is bruised egos, hurt feelings, and unnecessary drama.

Last, religion debate. We had it. It didn't work out, and the reasons are many. The most simple reason is that we have chosen to be a politics, news, and government debate forum. That is our focus. Religion is not included in that description except in the relatively rare case where religion and politics intersect. Knowing that we do not wish to host religion debate, and knowing that we wish to focus on politics, news, and government, and knowing that our ultimate goal is constructive, civil debate, anyone who wants to debate religion should know we are not the proper venue, and that better venues exist.

We don't want to be a religion forum. It's not our thing, and it won't be in the future.



Mike

Sigh.....more pronounced on the right eh? Wonder why you might think that....

Net2007 is correct in my opinion. This is by no means a "balanced" debate site. Its a well run site with good moderation...but it definitely leans left.

If you look at the date of my joining this site, you will see I've been around quite some time. I rarely debate or post here for many reasons...among them is the simple fact that as a moderate conservative I don't feel welcome here.

Over the years I've also seen so much bitterness and rudeness directed amongst the debaters here I sometimes wonder what folks have to do to get a ban...including some that debate here to this very day. It certainly gives me pause when deciding whether to put in my .02 cents.

Additionally, I've always been of the opinion that debate is pointless unless it leads to some sort of consensus at some point. If not, then its just a bunch of people yelling at each other and who needs more of that.

Obviously these are my opinions but if you want to know why at least one conservative doesn't post here, now you know.

Firstly, let me be slightly mean. I love debating religion, I think iit would be fun. I also think the Mods are absolutely correct in not allowing religion to be debated here. Debating a religion is NOT like debating race, where though emotions can run high, it can still be debated in a mannder consistent with logic and supported by facts and figures. Religion cannot. Or in the incredibly rare circumstances where it could, it is not.

Since handsomeguy started the thread, I dont feel out of place pointing out the recent religion thread he tried to start:

Here are your choices:
Choice #1: The 9/11 attacks were part of God's plan. So the USA must immediately and unconditionally surrender to those that planned the 9/11 attacks. U.S. troops must be put on trial and perhaps shot to death for defying God.
Choice #2: The USA must never surrender. Since "God" planned the 9/11 attacks, the US Military must immediately and unconditionally obliterate God. The United States of America, "In God We Trust" must be done away with entirely.
Choice #3: God allows free will and did not put any divine messages in the sky asking people if they wanted to live or die. "In God We Trust" must be done away with entirely.
Choice #4: Atheism is correct and "In God We Trust" must be done away with entirely.

Seriously? I'm not a Mod, but this breaks about 11 rules of the board not even including dont debate religion. As has been said, creating an open, non-partisan thread by asking neutral questions is not hard, not hard at all. If you ARE partisan, then you can feel free to answer these neutral questions in with partisan answers, something I have seen many people do. It also doesn't hurt if the questions are actually condusive to debate either.

I have had no real problems with the moderation on this board at all, and this is coming from someone who has tangled with the mods on several occasions. I certainly dont think they lean to the left at all in their moderation. Frankly, the one time they called me out and slapped me around, I deserved it.


I have to add one thing, and I say this with all due respect. net2007, you wave the fact that your WoT thread was closed over a year ago around every now and then, but I have to day, of COURSE it was closed. It was two dozen pages of rambling text covering a half dozen topics, filled with enormous assertions, that had no clear question, or even a clear topic. Dont get me wrong, you also made some well argued and evidenced points in there, by the sum-total was a polemic that was impossible to debate, or even really understand. The Survival Guide has some pretty clear suggestions on starting threads, it seems to me that the only 'bias' of the moderators is that they are biased against people who dont read these suggestions.


Finally, Rignwraith, yes at the moment I think there are probably more left wing than right wing people posting on this site. But that is at the moment, When I arrived back in the day, the opposite was true. Things change, people come and go. You can hardly blame the site or the moderators for that, unless you expect them to actively recruit more right-wing posters somehow.

I am afraid I have to disagree. No green party forum does not mean that the America's Debate forums are obviously biased to hinder the Greens' participation. It means that there has not been significant debate in the independent/3rd party area to suggest the creation of a Green Party forum. Should such develop I am sure that the moderators would happily create a green party specific forum. It is not bias against but rather than the Green party is a minor party and therfore suffers from the lower number of voices that might be expressed on their behalf - such is the nature of democracy.

In my time at AD, which is not as long as some but longer than some others, I have been very careful about when and where I post. I try to keep my noise to quality ratio heavily towards the quality and have only really posted where I have felt I had something to add to the debate. I have not posted on debates that I have wanted to either because the debate has moved on or evolved past the initial questions to which I would have answered or that I do not feel I can provide the supporting evidence for my opinion in a timely and readable manner. As is I have repeatedly been impressed by the quality, accuracy and speed of moderation and the suspension of threads while they are considered before being allowed to continue has always been handled in ways I considered sensible. And I will happily admit I am left leaning and *shock horror* a Liberal.

It is very rarely the case that "Simply put if it looks biased, then it's probably biased." More often it is the case that the person who is looking is biased and has not considered that in their appraisal.

I used to post under the description of a Green, but as I changed my political stand point, I discarded the label. During that time however, I noted a distinct lack of Green members and topics they might have started.

I haven't noticed any particular political bias in the way the forum is moderated. From my exterior perspective, seems very neutral. The only bias I have noted is a slight reluctance to call some older members to account, but even this is quite modest.

I have to say, I have seen this as well, and have in fact complained about it on at least one occasion. It may be something the moderators wish to discuss amongst themselves...

To follow up on Mike's point, the way the party-specific forums work on is that ONLY declared supporters of a particular party can post in that party's forum. So only Democrats can post to topics in Democrat debate, only Republicans can post to Republican party threads, etc. And my sense is that there simply are not enough declared Green Party members on to make a Green Party forum worthwhile.

Now of course, there is nothing whatsoever to stop anybody posting Green topics on the other forums (General Political Debate or International Issues, for instance). But the party-specific forums are just that - specific to declared party members. I can't post there, except perhaps in Independent/3rd party threads, because there is no forum for the party affiliation "Other", which I had no option but to select since UK political parties aren't in the available choices (understandably for a US site).

As for moderation bias, it's next to impossible to say. I'm left-leaning myself, though not a Mod, but I'm also not American so I guess I've lots in common with moif in thinking the site isn't especially biased, and is certainly a great deal less biased than practically anywhere else on the net. But the choice in internet debate sites is not generally between biased and unbiased moderation; it is between good moderation, mad moderation, and no moderation at all. Mods are human and are capable of mistakes (though thankfully not that many) but by and large they are really good compared to the other sites out there.

And as for the bias coming from the weight of posts, it maybe is more left leaning than right leaning just at the moment, but it hasn't always been that way (when I joined in about 2003 it was vastly 'biased' towards the right, even by the generally more right-leaning standards of American discourse compared to Europe). The simplest solution for right-leaning posters is to post more, but to do it within the rules, which are perfectly clear and which are not themselves biased. That also applies to right-leaning readers who don't currently post.

may have flaws, but there are other debate sites available. The object of is not to become a partisan site where one side of the aisle congregates to agree wih one another and throw brickbats at the other side should they ever have the temerity to post; that can be quite fun if you're in the in-crowd for that particular site, but it doesn't lead to much in the way of quality argument. Instead, tries very hard to be a place where more or less anyone can come and debate soberly and sensibly (passion is welcome, rudeness is not) with more or less anybody else, so the quality of the debates that result is (more or less) the sole responsibility of the people who post here.

I think there's some truth in Raptavio's point that Conservatives seem relatively keener to debate in right-wing echo chambers where they reinforce their own views, which may be particularly true at the moment in American politics where, nationally at least, conservatism is electorally under the cosh. Some wound-licking and isolation to recover is understandable; it's what the Dems did after the right surged into power in the late 90s and early 00s.

For what you ask? For making the typical lazy generalization that is frowned upon here at , without the remotest hint of substantiation. In this case "obviously biased".

Nobody is disarming him of the right to an opinion, but it is equally admissible to call him on the veracity of the statement made.

Absolutely. There are some folks here who can say any crazy thing they like and no amount of "telling the mod" changes what they do.

However, it's part of the deal here. You have to accept it and move on. Who knows, maybe one day you can say any crazy thing you like here without repercussions!

Can you cite any examples please, BaphometsAdvocate?

One of the problems being on the Staff, and no doubt being a Mod, is that the effect of "living in the moment" we all get on any debate board (the same debate topics and talking points popping up again and again over time) also apply to Mod/Staff decisions.

What I mean it, nobody on the Staff (comprising Administrators, Mods, and Committee Members like me) reads back over every single report through the entire history of before weighing up a particular report any more than any member reads every single post on every live or archived thread before posting. It would simply take too long.

So there is inevitably a bias towards whatever has been going on recently - e.g. if a particular member's posts have been the subject of a lot of legitimate reports recently, the Staff might take a dim view of them. Alternatively, if a particular member posts a lot of reports that turn out to be tenuous rule breaches at best (or outright mischievous reports designed to waste time or make someone else look bad), the Staff are more likely to ignore reports from that person.

So if you can cite examples of biased moderation over time in one place - here being as good as any - it might help to expose a pattern we Staffers have missed by getting lost in the details of weighing up each report individually, with or without this type of "currency bias".

And if you can't do that, maybe the bias is less than you think?

It was almost like net had posted the rough draft of a college term paper and attempted to add a few questions. He might count his blessings that MrsP closed the thread, in that expecting very many people to read it would be asking quite a lot.

It's time to forget this unfortunate episode and move on net.

Believe it or not, This Forum is Biasedly Controlled is handsomeguy's second most successful topic so far (with 20 replies and counting), trailing only Questions to Debate Are "Vague" eh?. Both, interestingly, accuse the staff of stifling debate, among other complaints.

Some of the debates that have been stifled: Regarding God and the 9/11 Attacks, Is Obama the First African-American President, and Blame Congress For the Devastation Hurricane Katrina Caused. There have been many more, only to be erased by the sands of internet time.

I think the staff has been more than patient with this kind of stuff, and it wouldn't bother me to see a much stronger smackdown for obvious wastes of time like these.

Like I said... lots of people like to curse the darkness. Few like to light a candle.

Want to have a Green Party forum? Recruit enough green party buddies to join the forum that would necessitate one.

Want to tip the scales to be more balanced to the right? Recruit more conservative friends to join the forum. (Like I said, I've endeavored to do this and I'm a freakin' lefty.)

Sitting and complaining and whining achieves nothing but the annoyance of the staff and the sense that one is "sticking it to the man." It's unproductive.

Be the change you want to see in your world.

Which pretty much debunks the notion of the staff stifling debate, doesn't it? If we were, there's no way we'd allow such threads to continue.

It also debunks the notion of stifling particular members, as well, for the same reason.

Maybe the issue isn't the staff, then? Just something to think about.

I want dancing girls and beer machines in my office... but HR frowns upon that and my boss in Chicago eventually will visit.

Amen to this notion. Beer in my office does happen on Friday afternoons... dancing girls? Maybe not the ones I want to see dancing (not that women want to see me dancing either!)



QH and I don't agree much... but this is 100% true.
There are more "liberally" leaning posters on AD, but to say the site is biased is really only a function of who posts and who doesn't. It's not the site itself but it's "inhabitants". I suppose some of us "troll" here because of the dissenting opinion.
What's the point of arguing/debating with people who all agree?

Vermillion



You see that's where I disagree, sure its true religion can not be substantiated by facts. However the idea that all the topics being discussed here are supported by "facts and figures" is a gross exaggeration. The idea that race debates aren't prone to generating emotion is also not accurate. Ive been in these type of race debates, and Ive seen others in these types of debates. Most race related forums ask questions and lead to statements based on opinions and speculation. Its very hard to prove that something is or isn't racist in many cases, because everyone's definition of racism slightly varies. So I'll have to disagree with you when you say these two topics are not comparable in that respect.

Race related forums are consistently opinion driven while often lacking facts and figures, and sometimes those opinions are emotionally driven. The thing is, I don't have a problem with race debate or opinion driven forums. It's interesting to hear what people think, even if they cant always prove it with facts. We also have very general topics being debated here and not all of these topics intersect with politics or government. Some people prefer to debate things like what's current in cinema, or what songs they like. Good luck finding facts and figures in a forum like that.

There is more to why religion isn't debated at AD than the idea that the subject varies so vastly from topics currently being debated here.

There is no interest or desire in debating religion here at this point, that's been made clear. Why is there no desire? Well I'm hearing a few different things from different people, and although I cant really get into details about private conversations with the admins, I do know what at least one of the Administrators here believes about those who believe in god, based on conversation. I suppose I wonder how much of a factor personal opinions really play in this decision when compared to the idea that religion isn't debated because it cant be supported by facts, or stirs too much controversy.

I'm not religious by the way, I'm an agnostic. I also understand the decision not to allow religious debate is set in stone, I brought it up here to demonstrate to handsomeguy that their are other topics that don't have a forum, and topics other than liberal debates being closed. Religion not only lacks a forum, it's prohibited in debated unless it intersects with another topic. Sometimes its prohibited even if it does intersect with another topic.

One time I actually had a forum closed that was primarily a science based post discussing real ways the world can end. Like from the impact of an asteroid for example. While nowhere near as long as my WOT forum, this was another forum I did, that I spent some time on. It was closed because the forum was viewed as too religious in nature. This is the forum.....

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...showtopic=15433

I started the post with a couple religiously related paragraphs in order to explain why the primary focus of the discussion would be from a scientific perspective. This can clearly be gathered by reading just the first few paragraphs. In any case it apparently had too much religious material. Later I went back and recomposed the forum removing the majority of the religiously related material and then I IMed it to the moderator team requesting having a repost, and It was denied again. At that point the recomposed forum barely even mentioned religion.

Ever since then I've had my suspicion that some of the reasons commonly stated don't really fully explain why religion isn't debated at AD. A part of me believes the primary reason its not allowed is because the admins do not like hearing about religion for personal reasons, and because of personal beliefs. That suspicion was given some substantiation when I talked in detail about this with Mike.

Now, I know I'm coming down tough here, and don't get me wrong the job of an administrator isn't easy. Simply put, Mike and Jamie are not going to make all their members happy all the time, and that includes me. I've listened to their radio show, and its fun to listen to now and then. I've also had some great debates here but lets just say I'm naturally inquisitive, and I don't mind stating criticisms or having a heated debate, even if its with a moderator or site administrator.




Ok so my WOT forum was a bit long, probably the longest forum ever attempted here. That's why I subdivided into chapter like sections. Each with its own set of specific questions. Then at the start of the post I said to the readers that I didn't expect everyone to read the whole thing, but i said feel free to read a section they find interesting and reply to any section they want. I even put a color coordinated legend at the top of that forum, I mean I went all out trying to make that lengthy post organized, and I was ready for a debate. All chapters were also subtopics of the War On terror, or directly related to it in some way. So the topics weren't so broad that they ranged into things that were irrelevant. It also had tons of factual data and links, almost 100 links.
I mixed my personal opinions in heavily in the conclusion and introductory of the post but each subsection got very specific. So two dozen pages of rambling is not what that post was Vermillion.

Im not upset that it was closed by the way, especially at this point. I just don't really believe what I was told when it was closed. I was told the forum was read before it was closed, and I was also told their was some consensus to close it. How was their time to read or even properly discuss that post when it was closed just a few minutes after it opened? I mean it was a 50 page forum for starters, and the mod that closed it showed up in the room about 10 minutes after I posted it and closed it a few minutes later, lol. I was doing a final proof read and I only got as far as the end of the introductory when it was closed. Hell I have to hand it to the speed reading mods if they actually read that post and discussed whether or not to close it, all in a matter of 5-10 minutes.

I'm not sour about it, they let me make a coupe smaller post from that one after all.

All this is appropriate to mention here considering the person who started this thread is talking about too many liberal forums being closed. The point is a lot of forums are being closed, for many different reasons as I showed. Like some I don't always agree with those reasons all the time, but their it is. The moderation here is tight across the board. However is their bias coming from the moderators and admins? At times yes, nobody is 100% fair or 100% unbiased at all times. Not MSNBC, not Fox News, and not Americas Debate.

Just a note here. Often, a moderator or admin will close a thread, and then we will have a discussion about it. If you pay attention you will sometimes see a thread closed for a few days, and then re-opened, either as is or with some changes. This prevents the thread being debated while we deliberate on it. Now in the case of your post in question, no one had to read it to know it wasn't going to be re-opened as is. Most of the members could probably tell you the reason, it's quite obvious. You just can't have a coherent debate thread that has a bunch of questions about related but different aspects of a topic like the WOT, each one prefaced by pages of your opinions. You'd end up with different people debating each other about different sets of questions. A thread like that will bog down in no time, with cross debating going on, it would really be just a mess.

If you spend some time looking at threads that have generated engaged and long debates, there are often similar qualities about them. They are concise, and usually have only one or two questions. Again, it's not rocket science.

Incidentally, one of the conservatives I invited to this forum has yet to receive registration confirmation... just so's ya know.

Or it would be, if that was what I had said. What I said is religion cannot be supported by facts, and thus is banned. Every other topic I have seen on here can be supported by facts in one way or another. Now whether posters CHOOSE to do so is an entirely seperate issue, but thats the fault of individual posters. And let me be clear, topic tangentially dealing with religion are allowed on ADS, as long as they are argued in a respectful and coherent manner. We have an ongoing thread on the merits of darwinian evolution right now, which I believe has clocked in at 4 pages or so, so far.



Or it wouldn't be, if that was what I had said. Stop that.

In fact I said the EXACT opposite, that race debates, while the still cause emotions to run high, can still be debated using facts and information.



Firstly, good luck finding topics like that outside the 'casual conversation' forum.
Secondly, debates about 'what people think' about religion almost always turn messy, and as such are banned here.
Thirdly, its hardly 'censoring' when the privately owned board is explicit about the banning or religious topics and the reasons why up front. Its not like they ban just topics about judaism, they found all religion tended to be a firebrand for the kind of degenerating flame wars this board strives to avoid. Its not like there are not 20,000 other forums on the internet where you can discuss religion to your heart's content.



Firstly, dont read conspiracy theories into perfectly logical premises. You have already heard from people in this thread who were around when religion debates WERE allowed (which in and of itself sinks your conspiracy theory) and said it was impracticable. I'm not sure why you find the need to hunt for some hidden motive at that point.
Secondly, even if your fantastic hidden motive WERE accurate... so what? Its their board. If they dont want anyone to use the word 'Gouda' on THEIR BOARD, and make explicit rules banning it, then that is their perogative. If that stifles the cheese-related debates you were hoping for, then feel free to visit one of the 20,000 'fromage-related' discusion boards on the web. Hell, if you look hard enough, you can probably even find a 'religion and cheese' discussion board which will serve up your heart's desire.




K, your 'science based' question started of with a quote from scripture, referenced religion in every one of the first dozen or so paragraphs, and then asked three vague questions two of which were explicitly religious. Oh and by the way, the questions were incredibly vague, largely unanswerable and not condusive to open debate. Perhaps after your edits you could have gotten away with not having it so religiously based, but if I were a Mod I would have closed it anyways. In my humble opinion, but then I'm not a mod.




A BIT long? Most threads start out with a post of half a page or less, your, according to you, was 50 pages. and you are willing to concede it was a 'bit long'? And I'm sorry, I have no intention of rearguing a thread that was justifiably closed a very long time ago, but lets all remember: that thread came out of many people challenging a lengthy series of unevidenced claims and assertions you made regarding the war on terror in other threads. I absolutely admire your attempts to evidence your previously questioned claims, but your self-defensive thread WAS rambling and at times incoherent. I happily admit I wanted to read it as I was involved in the previous debate with you, but was unable to chew my way through it. However, the quality of the post is utterly irrelevant here, the reality of the post is that it was a 50-page polemic on over a dozen topics, some with vague questions, some with no clear questions, others with very clear questions, and probably 30 or 40 questions posed overall.

The AD survival Guide only has two points on 'new threads', and they are:
> All new topics must have a clear, concise question to debate.
> New topics that do not have a clearly defined question to debate will be closed.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.



I cannot speak to that of course, but I will point out that the thread was closed 26 minutes after you posted it, and that maybe, just maybe, they only needed to read 40 of the 50 pages in order to determine that it broke several of the rules for new threads. Look, again I dont want to reargue this, so perhaps if you really want the issue exposed, I can just ask: does anyone here reading this thread think the WOT thread in question should NOT have been closed? Anyone at all?




If that was your point, then yes you are correct. Thread that break the rules of the board or overtly violate the recommendations of the survival guide are often closed.

Vermillion



If that is what you had said? Well Vermillion, it's obviously what you meant considering your last paragraph, where this time you do specifically say......

"Every other topic I have seen on here can be supported by facts in one way or another."

What's the point of opening that paragraph as if I'm assuming something, only to later say exactly what I assumed? Seems a little redundant if you ask me.

At any rate their are topics being debated here all the time that can't be supported by facts and figures. You want examples?

Lets start in casual conversation......

The new political joke thread

A joke thread is just one thread of hundreds created in casual conversation that doesn't have or require facts and figures.

Race Issues......

FOX News Latently racist political coverage

Here is one race debate of many where you don't see facts or even figures. What you do see is dozens of clashing opinions from multiple posters. Many race debates are strictly opinion based where the statements being made can not be proved one way or the other. Many of these forums open with questions intended to get peoples opinions. We have a forum going right now taking about whether or not robots from the movie Transformers are racist stereotypes, yet how does a person prove with a fact that robotic characters are racist stereotypes? They don't prove it, period. They give their opinion, and at the very best they show a study illustrating how many people thought the characters were stereotypes. That being said I can give a study showing that most Americans believe in God but it doesn't make it more or less factual.

Religion much like the topic of Racism is prone to generating opinion based forums, many of which lack or don't require factual data. Figures on the other hand can be shown in nearly all topics including religion. So when you say......

"Religion cannot be supported by facts, and thus is banned. Every other topic I have seen on here can be supported by facts in one way or another."

That is so obviously false I don't even know how anyone here could claim that and keep a straight face. Forums are being created on this site, on a regular bases which have no so called facts whatsoever.




Ok, here is a similar topic created outside the casual conversation forum......

What is the Happy Life?

Simple enough questions in that forum, and most of the answers given did not intersect with politics or government. It was a general topic, not reliant on facts and figures and it was in the Principles and Personal Philosophy section of this site. Which is an interesting section of the site unless of course a persons Principals and Personal Philosophy are religious in nature.



Do I really have to pull up examples of race related forums being given multiple warnings, and being closed for turning too messy? Heck I can find examples of that everywhere on this site. However, It's common place in the race issues section.



Everyone here knows good debates are born from controversial topics. That's what drives a debate, that's what makes the sections on race and war so interesting on this site. So what you call perfectly logical premises for prohibiting religious debates is quite peculiar to me. Your right though, its their prerogative, and it's their site. The decision is set in stone and that's about all their is to it. However, I will bring this issue to light in a forum talking about AD bias while stating too many liberal forums are being closed, and mentioning their is no green party forum.

I think its obvious, in that case, that their are proper places to debate the green party forum, and its certainly not prohibited. I don't see bias their, personally I just think its too small of a party to have a dedicated forum. That being said I do see bias on this site now and then, and I do see many forums closed where I scratch my head and wonder why. A common line used explain why a forum is closed is this one.......

"Questions for debate are too vague"

In many cases their absolutely right, but Ive seen forums where I understood the questions just fine only to see it closed.



The questions in that forum were not vague, one simply asked "When and how do you believe the human race will end?".

Being vague is not why that forum was closed, it was closed for being too religious. IF the context of the religious material was considered you could easily see that I was trying to explain religious prophecy as being too varied and inconsistent to predict the end of the world, so I could focus the debate on the science.

Anyway, like I said before, I recomposed the post removing the religious questions, removing the bible verse, and removing nearly all other religious material. At that point the subject was strictly scientific, explaining practical scientific ways the world could end, and asking questions based on that. From what I remember I even added a paragraph requesting that the debaters stay focused on scientific discussion.

In the end it was the following question that prevented a re-post of the forum....

"When and how do you believe the human race will end?"

It was thought that this question may lead to religious debate, even though the redone version had virtually no mention or focus on religion. So basically a re-post was denied based on the sheer possibility that someone might try and debate religion. Again that's their decision and I'm not bringing it up to start a quarrel, or discuss this again with the moderator team. I am bringing this up to show to hansomguy just how tight the moderating is on this site across the board. Many forums get closed, and sometimes its for reasons not everyone will agree with. Personally I think the site is over moderated, but that's me. I swear some of the long time site loyalist here almost sound like advertising spokesmen the way they defend this site on anything and everything, but I have a couple criticisms, what can I say.

The purpose of casual conversation is to have a forum where standards are relaxed and people just discuss rather than debate.

You make a flimsy case by using casual conversation - whether it’s jokes, book, movies or something else - as an argument.

BTW: How many people do you think read your 50 page blog entry? Although the thread is locked, your "term paper" is still there. I haven't read it and have no plans to do so.

Perhaps when you hone your knowledge and writing skills, people will read your copy. Had someone like Wertz or nighttimer posted 50 pages, I would have read every word.

Yes, and I quite happily stick by that. Again, you seem to have missed the point, just because something CAN be supported by facts and figures does not mean it WILL be. If it is not, that is the fault of the debator. yes I can point to many posts by many people, present company included, where no facts or figures were used to bolster their claims. But that was not because the topic was such that prohibited it, it was because the posters chose not to for whatever reason. See the difference now?

I think it is also worthwhile to point out that I specifically noted such threads exist only in the 'casual conversation' forum, so you posting an example thread from the 'casual conversation' forum to prove me wrong seems somewhat silly.




Ignoring your first example completely for obvious reasons, are you honestly going to tell me it would be impossible to support an argument about racism on a TV network with facts, figures, links and impartial sources of information? Honestly? That isnt even close to making sense.




Again you confuse the words 'can' and 'do'.

Look, I accept that on occasion topics will come up that are difficult to evidence properly, or not condusive to that kind of debate, in particular in a forum called 'principles and personal philosophies. But seriously, can you think of any topic so contentious and impossible to define or prove as religion? There is a reason why it was banned, and that reason is borne out by those who were there. I love talking about religion, and would like to, and am quite content that it is banned here.



And as I said, the religion example demonstrates nothing except a bias in favour of the rules. I have seen no evidence at all of too many liberal or conservative threads getting closed, only bad threads getting closed. And there is no hemp party or marxist-leninist party forum either, is that also bias?



I think there was a cornucopia of reasons why that thread could have been closed. The religious element was the most predominant, but there were plenty of others....



Actually, most of them have just asked for evidence of these so-called criticisms, and wonder what your factual basis for them is. Perhaps you can write them a 50 page rambling term paper explaining it.

(SORRY, sorry, that was tongue in cheek, but I just could not resist....

BoF


I'm sure you would have BOF. No doubt in my mind.
Vermillion


I gave you three examples from three different sections of this site, all of which lacked factual data. I could pull up more but let me answer your question. It would be impossible to prove that the Fox news coverage mentioned in that forum was racist, yes. Why? because everyone has a different opinion on what qualifies as racist, its that simple. I'm sure most liberal debaters that don't like Fox News could easily prove something like that, at least to themselves that is, but actually proving it is another story. Could they show things like opinion polls and links on a topic like that? Sure, then again I can show links and opinion polls on Religious topics. So the way I see it Race Debates often share traits with religious debates. They Both stir controversy, and they both rely heavily on personal opinion.

However, sometimes race debates and religious debates can both be substantiated by facts. It really depends on what's being discussed. For example, I can prove cases where religion has had a positive effect on people and communities, I can also prove that in other cases it has helped start wars, but at this point I'm not pouring any of my efforts into any substantial debate that even mentions religion specifically.




Now you say that? So you must have been wrong here then, right?.......

you...

"Every other topic I have seen on here can be supported by facts in one way or another."

You say you happily stick by the idea that "every other topic you have seen other than religion, can be supported by facts in one way or another." Then a couple paragraphs later you say you accept that some topics will come up that are difficult to evidence properly, or where facts are not condusive to that kind of debate.

Of course you also say I'm confusing the words "can" and "do" as if every debate here that isn't proved with facts could be if the right poster came along and presented those facts, but that's not true in many debates. Some debates not only lack conclusive factual data, some will additionally never be settled with factual data no matter who's debating. Again this is so common in race debates where you often see tons of opinion polls, and links, but rarely factual data. The premise that religion isn't debated here because its rarely possible to substantiate conclusively, would render hundreds of other non religious debates unwelcome here by the same standard. So that's obviously only one small reason of a few explaining why religion is prohibited here. I already got the whole rundown on this topic from Mike anyway so I have no so called conspiracy theory. Rereading an old email exchange with the admin clears it up just fine for me.

Look, I don't want to get into this anymore, its done, Originally I brought it up only to make a point that their are other topics being closed that are not liberal topics, obviously. I don't want a long drawn out debate on this.




Well I gave you evidence that their are other types of debates that are similar in some respects to religious debates in that they stir controversy or are hard to substantiate, yet they are allowed. Mike also said earlier in this forum that It's not their thing, its obvious why its not their thing. The only way I could go further to explain why would be to break the rules and post a private email conversation with an admin. That would get me striked if not banned, and it would be quite sneaky anyway.

Nice tongue in cheek by the way. Frankly It was a mistake to spend that much time and effort posting that WOT forum here, don't worry it wont happen again. Before my post starting thinning out on this site a few months back, I had a fresh new substantial forum in the works about NASA's new Constellation Space Program. I was going into detail about the space crafts that will replace the space shuttle as well as our countries plans to go back to the Moon and to Mars. I decided against wrapping that one up and posting it here when I realized that the posters that nag you for details and substantiation are the same goofballs who lack the attention span, or will, to read anything longer than a page or two. Details and substantiation aren't all it's held up to be by some of the elite here, unless of course you share their politics.

After a few months of debating here at AD I actually started pulling up more and more links to substantiate my debates very thoroughly. I got to a point where most of my replies were very well thought out, and whenever substantiation was necessary I almost always used it. My bookmarks list was so full of links that I had to categorize them just to find what I was looking for. Every link I ever used on this site was saved, and I had several hundred, and quite an effective system going.

Yet despite all of that, there was literally no change in the opponents debates styles with me, particularly regarding liberal members and libertarians. If I wasn't called "willfully ignorant" by multiple posters I was told things like "I should quit this site and go join the flat earth society," lol. I know that these debates have a habit of spawning snarky comments, and it never really bothered me much. The reason I slacked off my posting was that I realized that meaningful, intelligent, and constructive debate was limited when debating with those I was curious to debate with the most, and who was that? Mostly our liberal members, or those who don't view conservatism the way I do. So when I realized that most of these posters were uninterested in what I had to say, I became uninterested in making an attempt at meaningful debate here. My sense of curiosity regarding politics in general has greatly diminished over the last year, now I primarily read and study certain topics much more than I will debate them.

See? Proof that there's a kunspeeracy on teh intarwebs.

I actually agree that AD leans a little left. Nighttimer, Wertz, Droop, Lesly, Vic Silverwolf and some of the most compelling debaters and ideas I've seen come from people I sometimes disagree with, so actually, I view that overall as a positive thing. I've learned a lot of things from these and other people here, and I hope they feel the same way. If nothing else, I hope I'm at least entertaining.

And while I tend to think that some political issues intersect with religious concepts moreso than a mod who would stifle it with a warning, it's nice to see that the "Conservative" population isn't here with a "God said it, I believe it" argument. While conservative Christians still get lightly riddled for being conservative Christians - such as comments like "people who believe in fairy tales shouldn't be taken seriously...." with no response that could be anything BUT someone defending their own faith by noting merits, I'm rather refreshed that this kind of conversation doesn't dominate the forums as a big part of the Conservative platform.

I've invited a few of my conservative friends. Apparently, discussing the issues with someone who disagrees is much harder than discussing the issues with someone who agrees wholeheartedly. And Democrat/Independents/Liberals are historically more outspoken.

I've been edited, and corrected. And still, I have no beef.

Keep up the good work, Mike Jaime and Mods.

/gets off knees
//brushes dirt off pants

Stop altering what I say to suit you. Please.

I never said all arguments can be PROVEN using data and stataitics, in fact very few arguments can be absolutely proven to everyone's satisfaction. I said they can be argued, and demonstrated using neutral facts, links and evidence. Something that cannot be done regarding the main questions surrpounding religious debates. I have daid the same thing about 4 times and each time you try and misinterpret my words in a different way. Please dont do that.



Yes, its called a concession. You should try it some time. While I still do not believe there are entire topics of conversation on this board that cannot be discussed using facts and evidence (save religion) you have shown that in very rare cases, usually in personal philosophy forums, it is possible to have questions for debate which cannot easily be substantiated with evidence. Congratulations on having actually won a point.




There you go again. I said evidenced, you decided it would be fun if you substituted the word 'proved' and argued that. Please dont do that. However yes, most debates can be argued with facts and evidence, even if people occasionally choose not to do so, myself included of course.



Well then if its obvious to you, we dont need to talk about it anymore then do we? The fact that others who were here back when religion WAS a debatable topic (a fact your conspiracy theory seems to ignore) and have confirmed the reasons why it is no longer allowed doesnt seem to matter.



Yes, and you did an admirable job of showing the topics that break the rules of the forum are closed. Well done.





Right. So the reason your rambling 50-page post with dozens of vaguely related questions was closed wasOUR fault because 'the elite' does not have the attention span to truly appreciate your masterwork. Right, well if thats what you need to believe to make yourself feel better, then fine. I will say just this. Some of my students also seem to be of the impression when they submit their papers that long=good. It doesnt.




I honestly cannot speak to the actions of others in forums and debates in which I was not participating, I have no way to have an educated opinion on the matter. I will say that if everyone was calling you out on an apparent systemic problem with your posts, there are only two alternatives. you were at fault, or everyone reading your posts was at fault. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

I have no desire or ability to redebate posts in the pasts in threads in which I didnt even participate. I personally take every post at its merit, or lack thereof. I believe a majority of others on the site do as well, though perhaps not all...

I am confused net2007. you complain about unspecified members being snarky and then call those members “goofballs.” Further, you assume that people didn’t read your 50 page manuscript because of lack of “attention span” or not having the will to read anything "longer than a page or two.”

Then for good measure, you throw in that right-wing catch-word “elite.”

To post here net, you have to have a relatively thick skin. People get their tails stomped one day and stomp someone else's the next.

There are times when you appear a bit thin skinned.

BTW: Your 50 page post is still available, even though the thread is locked. You have evaded my question twice, so I’ll ask again. How many members do you think read the post? Take a wild guess.


It is great to hear that you are reading and attempting to improve your mind.

We do have a thread in casual conversation, click here, where members share what they are reading. This is not a debate forum. If you scroll through the thread, you might find that some those you think lack attention span read deeply. When reading, one has to be selective. Many years ago, columnist Walter Lippmann pointed out that it is impossible to read everything. Some of us do, however, read what interests us and what we have time to read given other responsibilities.

I look forward to your contributions to the book thread. Please share what you are reading with us there.

Vermillion








Other members have said similar things I have, some even going as far as having requesting a ban from the site. In fact read post number 10 in this very forum, the member that made that post has been a member longer than me and obviously has similar criticisms. So it's a bit misleading when you claim that either I am at fault or everyone else is at fault. By the way I also have no desire to bring up old debates, just to show that some members including myself have often times debated very intelligently and civilly only to have others tell them they need to go read a book, among other silly things.

BOF just mentioned something about "thick skin" and my lack of it. Well, I'll say this much, I have over 800 post on this site in about a 2 year period. I've also debated on other sites before that. Anyone who spends that much time debating has thick enough skin to have made a hobby of debating, obviously. So most of our long term debaters have thick skin. I'm not debating here with the effort I did before because Ive gotten to the point where I understand that political debates are often very limited due to bias and petty attacks driven by bias. So it's not so much that this stuff bothers me, it's because I can see how it limits debates. In other words I understand something I didn't understand a few years back. I understand now that some of the most intelligent individuals can be completely lacking in common sense, while being unwilling to broaden their minds, or take others seriously.

This isn't a problem solely with Americas Debate by the way, Its simply a problem with many people who are active in politics, or active in debating politics. So since this website does lean left, naturally the amount of stubbornness I see from liberals is quite high here. I'm not going to pretend that their aren't conservatives and republicans who aren't equally as stubborn and narrow minded, so in general what has discouraged me from debating as frequently as I once did, is the fact that I've realized that too many debaters take an attitude of "When I'm right I'm right, and when I'm wrong I'm right" You mention I should try conceding and Ive done that many many times in debate.

I wont lie, there are a handful of debaters here who do go that extra yard, but in general people are too set in their ways to ever be wrong, or to ever tell someone with opposite politics that they are right, or that they are a good debater. Despite the occasional moment of reality, most people debating politics spend their time defending those who share their opinions, while dismissing those who don't. You have to have thick skin to debate a right wing opinion on this site for any significant amount of time. It's like the member Ted for example, he's like a frekin punching bag on this website yet he has more post than anyone debating here. I've taken my share of hits as well, but I'm not going anywhere. I will however, from this point on, pick and choose my debates here. I don't take this as seriously as I once did, but I'll be around to put my two cents in now and then.

When is reading a book ever silly? You yourself said in a previous post that you were now reading and studying issues.


That is great, but without books to back up blogs and pundits like Glenn Beck, whom you seem to admire beyond reason, study is superficial. Not all information is on TV or the internet.

If books are that unimportant, I must ask the city council to do away with public libraries, a tradition in this country that's been around since Ben Franklin. It would save a lot of money and put countless souls out of work.

You didn't understand the context, I wasn't implying reading was silly. You knew what I meant.

I was implying that many people, while debating intelligently, receive remarks that suggest they are lacking in education. One classic debate tactic is to dumb down the other poster in an attempt to diminish their credibility. In other words some debaters will debate with the opposition as if they are not on their intellectual level primarily because it helps them assert themselves as more intelligent.

No net2007, I'm not clairvoyant and your meaning was not all that clear.

You continue to paint yourself as a victim. Why not take responsibilities for your own performance, or lack thereof, as a debater, rather than shift the blame to those you debate?

Victim my rear end BOF, I'm not painting myself as anything. Your attempting to make this poor me VS. everyone else when you ignore the context of my post. First off I read stupid unnecessary comments coming from members here all the time that are in no way directed me, but at other members. Secondly countless other members comment on the petty credibility attacks made by certain posters. Lastly, I clearly said, in plain English, "it's not so much that this stuff bothers me, it's because I can see how it limits debates." I understand the nature of political debate often seems to be all about making petty credibility attacks, or dismissing others. I could care in the least when someone I don't know attempts to be insulting. What I do care about is that this type of thing waste my time, it waste the time of others debating, and it makes meaningful and intelligent debate difficult. Can you understand that? You don't have to be clairvoyant to read and comprehend context that is obvious. Your a retired teacher if I remember right so you should be able to figure it out, I would think.

I suppose I can add my two cents here.

As most know, I'm a registered republican. I'm a former Marine who cast my first vote for Ronald Reagan back in the 80's. I've voted republican all my life and been a registered republican all my life.

I don't consider myself a libertarian or anything because I believe in the core conservative principles - I think abortion is murder, I believe in small government, and I believe in fiscal responsibility. I don't want the government to take the money I work hard for to give it to somebody to lazy to try to get ahead. I'm a self-taught engineer with only a high school diploma. When I combine my day job salary, my side engineering business money, and my gig money, I make 6 figures a year. And I work really, really hard at this.

I don't believe anyone could call themselves a principled conservative and accept the entire presidency of Bush as anything other than a colossal failure of conservatism. Bush bloated the government by 35%. He took a budget surplus and turned it into a 10 trillion dollar deficit. He used CIA agents as political fodder. He tortured prisoners because he believed "military" and "intelligence" in the same sentence is not an absurd assumption (anyone who has ever been in the service knows this).

Bush was a nation builder - he invaded a country to promote an ideology. With a republican house and Senate, Bush would not close the borders. In fact, he promoted amnesty. Bush allowed "military intelligence" to spy on Americans. Bush ignored the warnings of his counter terrorism director before 9/11 and acted surprised when 3K Americans paid for that with their lives. Bush hid the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to lessen the impact of his uncontrolled spending. And finally, his VP shot someone in the face.

Some of us republicans here on this board viewed that presidency as leftist as any democrat that has ever been in office. Some of us had the intellectual honesty to know that had Hillary Clinton done a fraction of what Bush was allowed to do by the republican party, she would have been impeached and quite possibly, in Leavenworth. Sadly, the majority of "conservatives" on this board made excuses for Bush and labeled the conservatives in my group as "leftists".

My point here is that we could appear to be left leaning because some of us republicans refused to drink the kool-aid. We are capable of independent thought. We have critical thinking skills that allow us to hold future leaders to the same standards we demanded of Bush without being hypocritical phonies.

There has been nothing worthy of honest defense over the last 8 years. The best the republicans can do now, is prop up a serial liar who used to be a governor of Alaska as a leader of the party. Out of 380 million Americans, republicans bet the farm on someone that somehow managed to make Hillary Clinton look good by comparison.

There is a left slant in politics because the United States has been run by liberals during a time liberals weren't in power.

And finally, net - I don't read your posts because I can't find a point. I don't have time to search for it through pages and pages of what sometimes appears to me to be rambling. I'm not suggesting your writing is not good, your sourcing is not good, or that you don't have a good point. I'm sure you do. I just don't have the time to find it buried wherever er it is in your posts.

The overall tone of your posts in this thread screams that conservatives are victims.

Go ahead and blame away. I'm out of here. I refuse to listen to anymore whining about how badly conservatives are treated. That's no more valid than handsomeguy's polar opposite post that initiated this thread.

If conservatives don't post, board statistics indicate they don't want to. The numbers are there, so that is their choice.

I see you ignored my suggestion that you share your readings in the book thread. Do you even include books in your study of issues?

There is a time when about the best thing to do is say, be my guest and have the last word.

BTW: I have nothing against you personally net2007, but I will admit that I have trouble taking you seriously. That said, the music thread you started was quite good.

Yes, I do include some books in my studies. Not so much on the topic of politics however, because I figure if im going to get a slanted view on something, it might as well be from sources I can quickly and easily cross reference. The internet, magazines, and the occasional newspaper is where I study politics most of the time.

Anyway, primarily what I stated was that this site leans left, as have several other members in this very forum. I've also launched a couple site criticisms along with a couple others. It's obviously why the thread was started by Handsomeguy. Instead of trying to paint everyone who makes a criticism as if they are whiny victims, it may do good if some of the loyalist here actually consider them as serious criticisms that are made for a reason. I'm not a victim in anyway whatsoever, all I did was explain why I don't debate here as frequently as I have in the past. It's because the depth of the debates are often quite limited. They are limited I believe because many people exist in a political bubble and are only willing to take someone serious if they share their opinions. That's not a problem with Americas Debate anymore than its a problem with debaters in general. The only reason this site would be a challenge to debate in as a conservative, is because this is a center left debate site, not necessarily because their is more bias or foolishness here than at other debate sites.

Since you already waved your white flag, you have yourself a nice evening.

I do want to correct one thing. I made my last edit at 12:37 CST time and you quoted a version I hadn’t finished editing 20 minutes after my last edit. Thanks for your courtesy in not checking to get the final edited version.

Here is what you should have quoted.

Except of course, for the most part that simply isnt true. You attempted to demonstrate your claim, and only managed to show that the moderators have a bias against people who break the rules of the forum. I'm sorry, but with all due respect I agree with Bof, you are playing the martyr card, half for you and half for the poor conservatives on the board. And yes it is true that there are a few people on this forum who do not accept opinions unless they conform strictly with their own, though I would not be so quick to exclude yourself from that group. However to claim that 'many only take people seriously if they share their opinions is ludicrous'. This is a debate board, people come here because they DONT share opinions, and enjoy the interplay. I share very, very few opinions with, say Amlord, but I take himseriously because he makes intelligent posts with well framed arguments and backs them up with generally neutral links. I'm sorry your claims about the fallacies of 'many' people on this board and 'most' debates are just unrealistic.


Slipping into lecture mode, can I just say, that is a terrible idea? Books remain the centre of the educational experience ecause of the editorial control necessary in their publication. Were you, say, to take an undergrad course in Poli Sci, you would read newspapers and the internet to be sure, but your core reading would be some of the great (and not so great) books on the topic. I recommend you expand your learning to include them, at the undergrad level, they are the critical element of learning. Of course once you reach graduate and post-graduate education, even books are insufficient and you start getting into primary materiels, but thats a bit beyond you right now...



No. The active posters on this board at the moment are predominantly centre left. That is a far cry from the board leans left or from the moderation leans left or is biased left. Its like calling a newspaper leftist because more than 50% of its readers are centre left at a given moment.



Yes, its because he started six or seven absolutely absurd threads that were instantly closed, and could not figure out why.



To be fair, I dont think Bof ever said everyone who makes a criticism was a whiny victim... I seem to recall he was referring to one specific case.

My pleasure, Jaime. I think this site seems to have a storied history and deserves to have help to live on.

Sorry to be a pest, but I just asked the guy and he said he hasn't received a confirmation nor can he log in. He may have registered under the name "Mike C".

Just checked the logs. We have no record of anyone signing up under that name. Try, try again!

I fall on the conservative side of the spectrum and I enjoy the site but don't post much. It's not because I find the site more left leaning, which I don't. I actually find it more left active. I see more people active who would be considered left on the spectrum. My problem is that when I find a thread that is interesting to me someone else has already put forth the same arguments that I would. I don't feel the need to beat a dead horse so I don't post.....but I do lurk.